Saturday, 14 March 2015

You may have your doubts, rest assured they are true. And if you haven't, you should.

Steroids are the new skinny. Steroids are the new strong.

She just wanted six-pack abdominal muscles. So in the summer of 2003,
Dionne Passacantando, a 17-year-old high school cheerleader, gymnast,
and vice president of her Allen (Texas) High School class, made a
decision she regrets. She bought anabolic steroids from a boy on the
school football team.

In fact, one of the difficulties I had when lecturing on the subject is
that the photos of East German women swimmers, the Wonder Girls, no
longer evoke much surprise at all. When I showed photos of swimmers
Kornelia Ender and Rosemarie Kother, whose musculature once scandalised
audiences, students are underwhelmed. They’re accustomed to seeing women
who have even more impressive physical development, even actresses and
‘fitness models’.

I use the term "physique sports" to encompass bikini, fitness, figures,
physique and bodybuilding. There are subtle differences between each
competitive class. Bikini girls are the ones seen in most of the fitness
magazines. They have a nice 6 pack, and a tight and toned athletic
look. Fitness and figures girls are more muscular, with deeper
separation between muscles, and a bit more of a "jacked' look.
Bodybuilders pack on as much muscle as they can, and looked striated,
vascular, shredded or ripped and physique is somewhere between
bodybuilding and figures.

Looking at the women bodybuilders, you can
kind of tell they must be doing something to enhance their physique, but
I was shocked to learn how many fitness and bikini girls were also
using physique enhancing drugs, or steroids to be exact!http://taylorhooton.org/coco-kissack/

damn steroids, how do they work?!!

"Believe me, I see high school kids and junior high school kids that
are dabbling in steroids and HGH [human growth hormone]," he said. "It's
amazing what happens. And their parents know it. Including girls, by
the way, especially girls. "The "Super Surgeon," who worked on
Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, said one women's sport specifically had a
steroid abuse epidemic:"Girls' soccer is rife with anabolic steroid use. It's amazing."

Just watched it. Interesting. A bit disillusioning. Googled things
like does Jamie Eason do steroids, seems like maybe she does. What
about Jillian Michaels? I googled that and found this video by her
martial arts instructor of 10 years about her steroid use!!! WTF!
Thoughts? Are we trying to achieve something impossible? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1122522

noble lies

Steroids are everywhere you look, they have become so ubiquitous that they don't stand out until you come across a real freaky physical specimen that pushes the boundaries even further. The mainstreaming of steroid-enhanced male idols is already a thing of the past, it's high time for the gender-equality in this department, comrades!

What could be more 'end of women' than women injecting the hormone of masculinity in their blood? What could be more feministic than this aping of men in the one sphere where the gender-inequality rankles the most?

Nothing new under the sun.

Feminism, the extremist - and of late years the predominant cult of the Woman's Movement, is Masculinism.

It makes for such training and development in woman, of male
characteristics, as shall equip her to compete with the male in every
department of life; academic, athletic, professional, political,
industrial. And it neither recognises nor admits in her natural
aptitudes differing from those of men, and fitting her, accordingly, for
different functions in these. It rejects all concessions to her
womanhood; even to her mother function.

The maths gender gap is decried as having a social origin by the good feminists but is blamed on biological factors by the (male) chauvinists, sexists and of course, misogynists. One of the widely reported study for the former view was released in 2008 which found that the maths gender gap is correlated with the gender equality of the country in question. The following is a refutation of this study along with the startling conclusion that in a saner society, this study would've come to the conclusion that boys are indeed better at maths and at the very least, have more potential.

1)The gender gaps are environmentally affected.
2)The more "gender-equal" a country, the lesser the gap between boys' and girls' performances in maths, with countries like Iceland even showing a reversal.
3)The reading gap(in favor of girls) increases further.

In the words of the lead author herself,Sapienza said: "Our research indicates that in more gender equal
societies, girls will gain an absolute advantage relative to boys."

Thus, once we've reached the gender-equality nirvana, girls would be at least equal to boys and often will be better.

The only problem, as pointed out by La Griffe Du Lion, was that while this conclusion held up with the 2003 data, the 2006 gender gaps were not correlated at all with the 2003 data. A curious thing for a study released in 2008 to use.

A more recent study refuting the gender equality conclusion is Stoet and Geary,2013 who analysed four PISA assessments from 2000 to 2009. One of their findings is that the two gaps are inversely correlated, the higher the reading gap in favor girls, the smaller(or even negative) maths gap in favor of boys. This holds for both the countries in question and the student distributions within them.

This finding also makes an intuitive sense, you need to read in order to do maths, especially on PISA which tests for 'maths literacy' and not classical high school mathematics, and also gives us the direction of causation.

It might also explain the lack of or smaller gender differences on the algebra portion of tests in comparison to geometry.

Interestingly, this effect was also observed in the Sapienza et al study, but the conclusion, of course, was that gender equality is driving these changes.

Gender equality in all these studies is usually measured by the Gender Gap Index, which as already discussed is more of a female superiority index which disregards female advantages and solely concerns itself with areas where they are behind.

Girls were also found to spend about 20% more time on maths homework than boys, a difference which reflects in grades. Despite boys doing better on standardized tests, they have worse grades than girls. And according to a recent study this has been true since the records were first kept.

The lack of male interest in reading is already a well-noted phenomenon, which has received scant attention compared to the gender gaps which don't favor girls; the parallels with the Gender Gap Index are totally coincidental of course.

Summing up:

1)Girls do better in reading and this difference also has repercussions for the maths gap.
2)Girls spend more effort on maths(and reading), a finding that goes against the supposedly male favoring environment of schools, at least in maths.
3)Girls also have the backing of huge social programs to succeed in maths contra male underachievement in reading skills where the difference is on the rise.

Thus the reality of the gender inequality in maths is not boys doing better due to environmental advantages but despite it. The insistence on issues like teacher attitude and sheer ludicrousness like stereotype threat are the crutches on which feminist self-esteem relies for its much cherished gender-equality and delusions of grandeur.

PS - Age at the time of assessment is important. More girls take SAT, the verbal scores are about equal(excluding the writing scores), which gives an indication of how big the maths gap can be in absence of the reading gap.

PPS - The 70s were for maths hysteria and Title IX, the 90s for self-esteem and teacher attention crises, the current issues are video games, spatial ability and the opprobrium faced by the bossy girls. The invectives against the inequality at the top that is still in favor of boys shadows the vast waste at the average.

Wednesday, 4 June 2014

But the data, she says, show that female professors in the study
actually were more likely to be second through fourth authors than
first. It knocked down her theory that male scientists had failed to ask
her to collaborate on academic articles because she is a woman. Since
she first visited Mr. Bergstrom's lab, in fact, she has published three
academic articles on which she is not the lead author. The article on
gender and authorship will be her fourth.

"For me," she says, "this really showed the beauty of science, that
you can have this personal experience that isn't reflected in big data."

Since the end result of the study had to be that women are discriminated against, the theory had to be discarded since the observations showed the opposite. And not that this evidence could be applied to the situation of men.

Instead of showing the beauty of science, it should've shown discrimination against men; but then women don't have that privilege going for them.

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

The Gender Gap Index(GGI) is often invoked in discussions related to women empowerment in the countries ranked on its basis. The Global Gender Gap report for the influential World Economic Forum uses it for determining the gender equality the nations have reached.

However, the so-called GGI is not about the gender gaps that favor women, and only concerns itself with the gender-gaps that don't favor women. So the inequality that men face is not considered.

The wiki article states:

The report’s Gender Gap Index ranks countries according to their gender
gaps, and their scores can be interpreted as the percentage of the
inequality between women and men that has been closed. Information about
gender imbalances to the advantage of women is explicitly prevented
from affecting the score.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report

Therefore the countries that reach 1 on it will have women who are as good as men and sometimes better.

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Stephen Jay Gould, a polemicist of science, who was recently hoisted on his own petard, wrote a book 'The Panda's Thumb' wherein one chapter was dedicated to women's brains, or the lack thereof when compared to men's. A woman called Maria Montessorri featured at the end of his essay. Gould writes of her:

She measured the circumference of children's heads in herschools and inferred that the best prospects had bigger brains. But she had no use for Broca's conclusions about women. She discussed Manouvrier's work at length and made much of his tentative claim that women, after proper correction of the data, had slightly larger brains than men. Women, she concluded, were intellectually superior, but men had prevailed heretofore by dint of physical force.

And Gould then went quoting her at length:

Since technology has abolished force as an instrument of power, the era of women may soon be upon us: "In such an epoch there will really be superior human beings, there will really be men strong in morality and in sentiment. Perhaps in this way the reign of women is approaching, when the enigma of her anthropological superiority will be deciphered. Woman was always the custodian of human sentiment, morality and honor."

And then there is the more serious way of saying women were chattel: they went from their fathers and brothers to their husbands and sons(see they moved!) with the involvement of wealth(and see property, patrimony, matrimony, QED bigot!), without the sex-in-the-city woo-girl lesbian-experimentalist phase that is a fundamental right of womankind.

The perspective that women were property sounds quite absurd when male resources is a common point in discussions of mate-selection. Property, wealth, money, doesn't exactly sound what men look for in a woman, isn't that what the 'strong and independent'™ women bewail about?

If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.

The lack of male prostitution, notwithstanding the "buying women" stupidity that feminists use, is another hint.

The existence of Coverture where the legal identity of woman was subsumed into her husband's when they married, the feme sole converting to feme covert, following which her earnings and whatever she brought into the marriage went to her husband and became his property and not hers, OMG patriarchy was really evil!

This state of affairs was to continue until a brave lady by the name of Caroline Norton appeared on the scene, rather disappeared from her husband's scene, much to his chagrin.

Wikipedia recounts her property grievance:

In 1836, Caroline left her husband.Caroline managed to subsist on her earnings as an author, but Norton claimed these as his own, arguing successfully in court that, as her husband, Caroline's earnings were legally his.

and how unfair the law was towards wives, yet Mrs. Norton certainly gave back as good as she got:

Paid nothing by her husband, her earnings confiscated, Caroline used the law to her own advantage. Running up bills in her husband's name, Caroline told the creditors when they came to collect, that if they wished to be paid, they could sue her husband.

LOLZ patriarchy hoisted on its own petard!

Oh wait...

Why did the creditors could sue her husband and not her?

The answer is provided in stark contrast when one considers what Mrs Norton's orgy of tears led to. Married Women's Property Act, a law by which married women could keep their property to themselves and only themselves like other women could, all is well and equal, innit? NOT!

First wave feminist equality in full effect. FREEDOM from pater-archy!!

So the freedom that feminists want is a freedom from responsibility when it comes to interaction with men. And of course, the same rights that a man has. Logical contradictions are for the weak-minded.

Reason exists for those who cannot go on living without clinging to it.
-Aizen Sosuke

Feminism and "Feminism is not a monolith" being just a power play where men are in the wrong regardless of what women do. If you are not a feminist, you're a bad person. Become a feminist and indulge yourself in the orgy of women-empowerment and the subsequent screeching amongst feminists as to how this empowerment can be attained(Note for phallus-bearers, keep your mouth shut so that women's voices could be heard!).

So men shouldered responsibility before too, but now are sent off to jail in the name of child support(so sad too bad, you should have kept your dick in your pants, Mr. Oppressor!) andhave no power/authority against that responsibility(and that's the way we do gender-equality, bigot!), times they are a-changing'!

Of course that doesn't go very far when State is much more than mere military and almost a provider husband for many women, election issues can devolve into the inanity of "War on Women", and in our enlightened brave new world in which women can be soldiers too, bigot, at least equal and sometimes better than men.